Reflectorites
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:19:07 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>[snip most of Stephen's nonsense]
Snipping an opponent's arguments without comment is OK-I do it myself.
But when someone snips an opponent's argument with a comment that it is
"nonsense", the likely explanation is that he/she is unable to deal with the
opponent's arguments. Because if an opponent's message really was
"nonsense", one would be unlikely to pass up the opportunity to
*demonstrate* it!
>SJ>Richard says of himself below that: "I admit that I don't understand the
>>Second Law either"!
RW>Exactly. I have the sense to realize that the Second Law is a complex
>technical issue that I don't fully understand.
That's OK, but then why does Richard pontificate on about it?
But actually the "issue" of the SLoT that creationists are raising (namely
the *origin* of the code-driven energy conversion machinery) is not all that
"complex" and "technical".
RW>Stephen, on the other hand, has the arrogance to believe that he understands
>it better than the experts!
No I don't claim that I understand the SLoT "better than the experts". But
unlike Richard I actually have *read* what some of what the "experts" say
on the SLoT and I have over the years on this List (long before Richard
came on the scene), debated it.
The problem is not so much not understanding the SLoT, but
understanding what is the *real* issue of the SLoT in relation to evolution.
Most of the discussion by "experts" are answering the wrong questions and
confusing the issue with unnecessarily complex jargon.
No one (not even the strictest YEC AFAIK) disputes that once life is a *going
concern* it can harness the SLoT and appear to move `uphill' (or at least
stand still) against the SLoT's universal `downhill' order-to-disorder flow.
So *in that sense*, evolution does not violate the SLoT (or rather the SLoT
does not violate evolution), and no leading YEC has AFAIK ever denied that.
Life uniquely is able to temporarily move `uphill' (or at least stand still)
against the SLoT's `downhill' flow by the use of highly complex, code-
driven cellular energy-conversion machinery.
The *real* problem is the *origin* of that machinery. *None* of it would
work at all until *all* of it was in place together at the same time.
And the SLoT itself would tend to degrade the individual components of
the cellular codes and energy-conversion machinery until they were all in
place.
RW>There has been a discussion recently in talk.origins about whether the
>entropy of the sun is increasing or decreasing. It has been claimed that
>it's decreasing, because nuclear fusion results in a decrease in the number
>of particles. I don't pretend to know whether this is correct, but no doubt
>Stephen, with his thorough knowledge of the Second Law, will be able to
>enlighten us. (Not!)
See above. All these other issues, while no doubt interesting to a physicist
is essentially *irrelevant* to the real issue which is the origin of the code-
driven energy conversion machinery, the individual components of which
the SLoT would degrade.
RW>I may not fully understand the Second Law, but I understand enough to see
>that Stephen doesn't have a clue about it.
If Richard does "not fully understand the Second Law", how does he know
that the aspect of the SLoT that I write about is not in the part that Richard
does not fully understand?
Notice BTW that Richard has not actually tackled my actual arguments
regarding the SLoT by instead relies on ad hominems.
This is another example of how evolutionists, when they cannot answer a
creationist/IDer critic's arguments, resorts to `shoot the messenger' ad
hominems in order to discredit the critic.
I am not happy with this because: a) it shows the evolutionists really don't
have an adequate answer; and b) I am confident that in the end it will
backfire on the evolutionists and discredits them and their cause.
SJ>Stephen and his friends keep
>referring to stuff like "code-driven energy-conversion systems" in the
>context of the Second Law. Just reading the Second Law, in any of the forms
>that physicists give it, one can see that it says _nothing_ at_all_ about
>codes or conversion systems.
And *that* is part of the problem! The "physicists" are asking and
answering the wrong questions. They see it just as an energy supply
problem. But it is not *just* an energy supply problem. It is an energy-
*conversion* problem.
RW>The only form of the law that mentions these is
>the version invented by creationists.
Actually it does come up in evolutionist writings but they usually don't see
the problem in all its clarity. For example, the physicist Blum, in a book
dedicated to the SLoT and evolution (which itself shows it is not a trivial
issue) wrote:
Actually it does come up in evolutionist writings but they usually don't see
the problem in all its clarity. For example, the physicist Blum, in a book
dedicated to the SLoT and evolution (which itself shows it is not a trivial
issue) wrote:
"Few of those concerned with the problem of the origin of life seem
at have given more than passing attention to the question of
mobilization of free energy for the reproduction of the original
living systems. Since the reproduction of proteins could not have
gone on without a means of energy mobilization, it may also be
necessary to assume that these two processes had their origin at the
same time, unless indeed the latter actually antedated the former. In
all modern organisms energy metabolism is so closely dependent
upon the existence of proteins, catalysis by enzymes being an
intimate part, that it is difficult to see now they could have
originated separately. At any rate, the problem of energy supply for
the first living organisms seems fundamental, and we must make
some shift to attack it." (Blum H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution,"
1962, p.165)
and
"A point too often passed over in making hypotheses about the
origin of life is that the problem of reproducing the parts of a living
organism, once the machinery exists, is quite different from the
problem of building the first machine." (Blum H.F., 1962, p.178E).
And more recently another physicist, Paul Davies, wrote:
"We must be careful, however, not to fall into a trap here. Just because life
is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics
does not mean that the second law explains life. It certainly doesn't.
Unfortunately many scientists who should know better have succumbed to
this fallacy. We still have to demonstrate how the exchange of entropy with
the environment brings about the very specific sort of order represented by
biological organisms. Merely specifying a source of useful energy does not
of itself offer an explanation for how the ordering process happens. To do
that, one needs to identify the exact mechanisms that will couple the
reservoir of available energy to biologically relevant processes. To
overlook this part of the story is rather like proclaiming that the function
of refrigerators is explained once we have found an electrical socket."
(Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle," 1998, p.26. Emphasis in original)
and
"If a process lowers the energy of a system, i.e. if it goes 'downhill
then it has the second law's blessing. By contrast an 'uphill' process
defies the second law. Water runs downhill, but not uphill. You can
make water go uphill, but only if you work for it. A process that
happens spontaneously is always a downhill process. Amino acid
production has this character of being a downhill process, which is
why amino acids are so easy to make. But now we hit a snag. The
second step on the road to life, or at least the road to proteins, is
for amino acids to link together to form molecules known as
peptides. A protein is a long peptide chain, or a polypeptide.
Whereas the spontaneous formation of amino acids from an
inorganic chemical mixture is an allowed downhill process, coupling
amino acids together to form peptides is an uphill process. It
therefore heads in the wrong direction, thermodynamically
speaking. Each peptide bond that is forged requires a water
molecule to be plucked from the chain. In a watery medium like a
primordial soup, this is thermodynamically unfavourable.
Consequently, it will not happen spontaneously: work has to be
done to force the newly extracted water molecule into the water-
saturated medium. Obviously peptide formation is not impossible,
because it happens inside living organisms. But there the uphill
reaction is driven along by the use of customized molecules that are
pre-energized to supply the necessary work. In a simple chemical
soup, no such specialized molecules would be on hand to give the
reactions the boost they need. So a watery soup is a recipe for
molecular disassembly, not self-assembly." (Davies P.C.W., 1998,
p.59)
A major problem is that because it is an interdisciplinary problem, across
the borders of physics and biology, the question is never properly posed
and so it never gets answered. The physicists seem to think the biologist
know the answer and the biologists apparently think the physicists know
the answer - another example of the "ask the professor down the hall"
syndrome!
But the main problem IMHO is Kuhnian `paradigm blindness':
"Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with
the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-
induced expectations that govern normal science. It then continues
with a more or less extended exploration of the area of anomaly.
And it closes only when the paradigm theory has been adjusted so
that the anomalous has become the expected. Assimilating a new
sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and
until that adjustment is completed-until the scientist has learned to
see nature in a different way-the new fact is not quite a scientific
fact at all." (Kuhn T.S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,"
1970, pp.52-53)
Creationists tend to see the real problem more clearly (although *young-
Earth* creationists do unnecessarily muddy the water somewhat) because it
fits well within their supernaturalistic paradigm. But because it is an
unsolved anomaly within the naturalistic paradigm evolutionists tend not to
see the problem as clearly, if they see it at all.
RW>Stephen's basic error is to confuse
>the Second Law of Thermodynamics with the Creationist Law of
Thermodynamics.
No. There is no "Creationist Law of Thermodynamics". Creationists are
referring to the same "Second Law of Thermodynamics" that physicists and
biologists refer to.
Here is a summary of the problem in a nutshell, by a creationist (old-Earth)
biologist:
"The arrow of time points downwards. Just as water finds its own
level, so chemical reactions tend toward the stability of equilibrium
and a `heat death' of the universe where everything is at the safe
temperature with no energy available for use. Life is different.
Death levels individuals but, like a spring, generation after
generation, life itself wells up. It keeps juggling; it stays unstable.
Its molecules are built up into improbable, unnaturally complex
groups. Evolution requires an increase, not just in physical size of
molecules but in organization. Organized systems are purposive,
assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring
diagram', with a high information content. You may throw letters
together and, by chance, make words But organization requires that
words are assembled more often than chance alone would achieve,
and grouped in sentences to make meaning statements. Wherever
such high-grade organization appears to counteract, at least
temporarily, the general tendency to disorder, dilapidation and
`deadly' randomness, inspection reveals a feature behind it - plan. A
pile of bricks and planks becomes a house, a seed grows into a tree.
In both we see plan one in the builder's mind, the other encoded in
DNA.
'Hold on!' cries the evolutionist, 'a plan represents an increase in
information. You say the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids
this happening spontaneously. That may apply to closed systems.
But the earth is an open system with an external source of energy
(the sun). This energy is sufficient to generate local increases in
information, such as complex chemical compounds and, eventually,
life-forms.'
'Untrue,' says the creationist. 'Raw, uncontrolled energy is
destructive. To build the biologically complex from the simple (and
a cell is certainly very complex) four, not two, conditions are
required: (1) An open system (such as earth) (2) An adequate
energy supply (3) Energy-conversion mechanisms (4) A control
system directing, maintaining and reproducing the energy-
conversion systems. The hypothetical primordial earth would have
satisfied only (1) and (2). Yet (3) and (4) are essential criteria for
the development and maintenance of biotechnology. For life (3)
means photosynthetic, respiratory and other metabolic systems; (4)
means reproductive apparatus including DNA (the genetic code).
How did the precise, highly informed engineering required for (3)
and (4) occur by chance?'"
(Pitman M., "Adam and Evolution," Rider & Co: London, 1984,
p.232)
I presume that evolutionists deep down know they cannot answer this
*real* issue and so they either: 1) keep raising irrelevant side issues; and/or
2) obscure understanding with technical jargon; and/or 3) `shoot the
messenger' by personally attacking the creationists as ignorant Bible-
thumpers for raising such inconvenient questions!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To me, the greatest problem regarding the origin of life lies at another
level. In the first place, it seems necessary to face the difficulty of deciding
what was the first organism. The origin of life represents a transition from
the nonliving to the living, which I have great difficulty in imagining as a
sharp one. I do not see, for example, how proteins could have leapt
suddenly into being. Yet both heterotrophic and autotrophic metabolism
are, in modern organisms, strictly dependent upon the existence of proteins
in -the form of catalysts. The riddle seems to be: *How, when no life
existed, did substances come into being which today are absolutely
essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?*
It seems begging the question to suggest that the first protein molecules
were formed by some more primitive "nonprotein living system," for it still
remains to define and account for the origin of that system." (Blum H.F.,
"Time's Arrow and Evolution," [1951], Harper Torchbooks: New York
NY, 1962, p.170. Emphasis in original)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 00:35:57 EST